Literature DB >> 32364879

Pro-Con Perspectives on Ethics in Surgical Research: Update from the 39th Annual Surgical Infection Society Meeting.

Vanessa P Ho1,2, Evelyn I Truong1, Saira Nisar3, Addison K May4, Gregory J Beilman5, Donald E Fry6, Philip S Barie7, Jared M Huston8, Jeffrey W Shupp3, Fredric M Pieracci9.   

Abstract

Background: Surgical research is potentially invasive, high-risk, and costly. Research that advances medical dogma must justify both its ends and its means. Although ethical questions do not always have simple answers, it is critically important for the clinician, researcher, and patient to approach these dilemmas and surgical research in a thoughtful, conscientious manner.
Methods: We present four ethical issues in surgical research and discuss the opposing viewpoints. These topics were presented and discussed at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society as pro-con debates. The presenters of each opinion developed a succinct summary of their respective reviews for this publication.
Results: The key subjects for these pro-con debates were: (1) Should patients be enrolled for time-sensitive surgical infection research using an opt-out or an opt-in strategy? (2) Should patients who are being enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery with a non-operative intervention pay the costs of their treatment arm? (3) Should the scientific community embrace open access journals as the future of scientific publishing? (4) Should the majority of funding go to clinical or basic science research? Important points were illustrated in each of the pro-con presentations and illustrated the difficulties that are facing the performance and payment of infection research in the future. Conclusions: Surgical research is ethically complex, with conflicting demands between individual patients, society, and healthcare economics. At present, there are no clear answers to these and the many other ethical issues facing research in the future. Answers will only come from continued robust dialogue among all stakeholders in surgical research.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ethics; informed consent; research; research funding; surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32364879      PMCID: PMC7232654          DOI: 10.1089/sur.2020.098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1096-2964            Impact factor:   2.150


  41 in total

1.  What's the price of a research subject? Approaches to payment for research participation.

Authors:  N Dickert; C Grady
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-07-15       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Lisa A Bero; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Otavio Clark
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-31

3.  Industry Support of Medical Research: Important Opportunity or Treacherous Pitfall?

Authors:  William M Tierney; Eric M Meslin; Kurt Kroenke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Patents, profits, and the American people--the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.

Authors:  Howard Markel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Industry-sponsored research.

Authors:  Kanu Okike; Mininder S Kocher; Charles T Mehlman; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.586

6.  Writing a successful NIH Mentored Career Development Grant (K award): hints for the junior faculty surgeon.

Authors:  Malcolm V Brock; Michael Bouvet
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Not All Industry-Affiliated Groups Are Created Equal: Some Conditions Under Which Science and Industry May Coexist Ethically and for the Public Good.

Authors:  Sharon C Wilsnack; Kenneth J Sher; Kim Fromme; Kenneth E Leonard; Laura E Nagy; Helene R White
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.582

8.  The Future of Basic Science in Academic Surgery: Identifying Barriers to Success for Surgeon-scientists.

Authors:  Sundeep G Keswani; Chad M Moles; Michael Morowitz; Herbert Zeh; John S Kuo; Matthew H Levine; Lily S Cheng; David J Hackam; Nita Ahuja; Allan M Goldstein
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 12.969

9.  Patients' experiences and preferences for opt-in models and health professional involvement in biobanking consent: A cross-sectional survey of Australian cancer outpatients.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Fradgley; Shu Er Chong; Martine E Cox; Craig Gedye; Christine L Paul
Journal:  Asia Pac J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 2.601

10.  Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

Authors:  A M Brandt
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1978-12       Impact factor: 2.683

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.